Immunity for Leadership, Blame for One: How Principal and Superintendent Failures Left Ebony Parker a Scapegoat

By: John Huber MarylandK12.com

This is the fourth part in our series examining failures surrounding the January 6, 2023, shooting of first-grade teacher Abby Zwerner at Richneck Elementary School in Newport News, Virginia. Previous installments explored the timeline of events, authority gaps, and the district’s disciplinary practices. In this piece, we focus on why the superintendent and principal were granted immunity, how the culture they shaped contributed to their claimed ignorance, and why the assistant principal became the sole defendant, and clear scapegoat, despite systemic gaps.

Context

On January 6, 2023, first-grade teacher Abby Zwerner was shot in her classroom at Richneck Elementary School in Newport News, Virginia by a six-year-old student who brought his mother’s handgun to school in his backpack. The civil litigation that followed initially named the school board, the superintendent George Parker, the principal Brianna Foster-Newton, and the assistant principal Ebony Parker. By July 2025, the court dismissed the superintendent and principal on sovereign immunity grounds, finding those claims were simple (not gross) negligence, leaving Assistant Principal Ebony Parker to face civil trial on a gross negligence theory. In November 2025, a Newport News jury awarded 10 million dollars to Zwerner after concluding Parker’s inaction met the gross negligence threshold.

Teachers and former administrators in Newport News publicly described a culture of fear and lack of support, alleging discipline was suppressed to protect attendance and accreditation optics and that threat assessments were often not completed despite violent behavior. Those accounts matter because the superintendent and principal’s legal strategy relied on claimed ignorance of the day’s unfolding warnings; however, the standards that govern their roles require systems that ensure records continuity, threat assessment, re-entry planning, and upward escalation, all of which bear on whether ignorance is either plausible or exculpatory.

The Legal Baseline: Why Immunity Was Granted

Virginia’s sovereign immunity doctrine protects the Commonwealth and certain local governmental entities and officials from liability, absent a statutory waiver, and distinguishes between simple negligence, which is generally protected, and gross negligence or willful misconduct, which is not protected. The Virginia Supreme Court reaffirmed broad immunity for school boards in Newport News School Board v. Z.M. (May 8, 2025), clarifying that Va. Code § 22.1-194 waives immunity only for vehicle accidents covered by insurance and does not otherwise open personal injury claims against boards (Virginia Supreme Court Opinion). The Court again emphasized that sovereign immunity in Virginia is “alive and well,” building on precedents such as Kellam v. School Board of Norfolk (1960) and Messina v. Burden (1984).

At the trial court, Judge Matthew Hoffman dismissed claims against Superintendent George Parker and Principal Brianna Foster-Newton in July 2025, noting the allegations were basically simple negligence, which sovereign immunity protects. In contrast, the court found the allegations against Assistant Principal Ebony Parker sufficiently serious and fact-specific to proceed to a jury on gross negligence which is not protected. This is the legal basis for why the claims against Parker went forward and the others did not.  This distinction led to the 10-million-dollar verdict in November 2025.  Virginia’s teacher and employee civil immunity statute (Va. Code § 8.01-220.1:2) also provides immunity for actions taken in good faith unless they constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct. This is how the court saw Parker’s alleged inaction versus the others’ claimed ignorance (Virginia Code).

So that is why the principal and superintendent walked away from the lawsuit and left Dr. Parker as the sole scapegoat. Now let’s look at the culture they created, the missing records, and the standards that say safety was their job.

The Missing Records: A Concrete Example of Culture and Standards Failure

The special grand jury and subsequent coverage document that when first-grade teachers including Zwerner reviewed files for incoming students in 2022–23, critical kindergarten records were missing or incomplete despite severe prior incidents, including the student’s 2021 choking of a teacher leading to his temporary removal from Richneck. Teachers and reporters noted that violent conduct, aggressive playground behavior such as chasing peers with a belt, and other serious red flags did not consistently carry forward in a manner that supported proactive planning such as threat assessment, behavior plans, and classroom supports upon the student’s return to Richneck.

Not only that, but the grand jury report reveals that disciplinary records, including documentation of the student’s violent incidents, were never found in the school’s file system, but later they turned up in the possession of LaQuiche Parrott, the district’s Director of Elementary School Leadership, at her home and in her car. She then denied knowing how the records got there, stating she could not recall the circumstances of their removal.

Grand jurors expressed concern that her explanation created “far more questions than answers,” by the unusual nature of a private and confidential file being stored off campus. In addition, she had a detailed memory of all the events on that day, but she can’t remember anything about the missing file. Another file which was kept in MS. Zwerner’s classroom has never been found. The file that was returned by Dr. Parrott did not include any disciplinary information. The report recommended continued investigation into whether her actions might constitute obstruction of justice.

Under Virginia’s principal role standard (8VAC20-132-200), principals are responsible for ensuring student records are maintained and that criteria used in placement and interventions are included in those records, while sustaining a positive, safe school climate and providing timely, accurate information to staff and stakeholders (Virginia Administrative Code). The superintendent is evaluated on Organizational Leadership and Safety and Communication and Community Relations, requiring division-wide systems to preserve and transmit information across grades and schools (VDOE Superintendent Evaluation Guidelines). When records go missing, the system has failed, and that failure sits with leadership under Virginia’s standards.

Climate and Testing Priorities: Why Warnings Did Not Travel Upward

A core explanation for why repeated warnings on January 6 did not reach the principal is culture, specifically an environment that suppressed discipline and discouraged escalation to protect attendance, accreditation optics, and testing priorities. Teachers in Newport News said discipline incidents were not always officially reported, with suspensions discouraged because they “will affect attendance, school ratings and funding.” They described students being sent to the office and returning shortly “with a snack and a pat on the back,” signaling that consequences were secondary to metrics and optics.

The documented “culture of fear and insecurity” further corroborates a division-wide climate where teachers felt unsafe and unheard, and leadership tolerance for disruption undermined credible escalation paths. Retired assistant principal Julianne Marse described non-compliance with threat-assessment protocols and top-down messaging to “just deal with it,” pointing to organizational norms rather than isolated errors. That dynamic would reasonably make an assistant principal hesitant to interrupt the principal mid-meeting, even amid mounting safety concerns. Under Virginia’s standards, principals must sustain a safe climate and communicate effectively, and superintendents must build systems that surface safety information and empower staff to escalate. A culture that penalizes or discourages escalation breaches those standards.

What They Knew or Ought to Have Known About the Student

Even if the principal and superintendent argue that they did not know the day’s specifics, the student’s documented history was both severe and traceable:

• 2021: Choking a kindergarten teacher, leading to removal from Richneck.
• Fall 2022: Aggressive playground behavior, chasing peers with a belt, cursing staff.
• Early January 2023: Phone-smashing incident against Zwerner, resulting in a one-day suspension and same-day return on January 6.

The special grand jury adds that administrators failed to initiate a Functional Behavioral Assessment or Behavior Intervention Plan despite persistent aggression, and that four warnings about a possible gun were ignored on January 6.

Records continuity was also broken: first-grade teachers noted missing kindergarten records when reviewing files for 2022–23. Principals must ensure records are maintained and used for interventions, and superintendents must build systems that preserve and communicate safety-critical information division-wide.

Finally, basic best practices were missing: no documented re-entry conference after the phone-smashing suspension, and no clear IEP or Tiered supports despite a long history of significant behavioral issues, with a modified schedule used instead.

Best Practices That Were Missing

The failures here reflect process omissions against accepted school-safety practices:

• Threat Assessment: Routine non-compliance, no FBA or BIP despite significant behavior patterns (13NewsNow).
• IEP or Tiered Supports: Modified schedule used instead of formal supports, leadership accountable for ensuring adequate services).
• Re-Entry Conference: No documented re-entry after phone-smash suspension, missed opportunity to reset expectations and safety planning.
• Records Continuity: Missing kindergarten records hindered planning, standards assign this duty to leadership.

The Accountability Fork: Either Way, Leadership Owns It

If they knew, failing to act breaches principal and superintendent standards for safe climate and organizational safety. If they did not know, they did not know because the system suppressed reporting and records. This is self-created ignorance, also a standards breach.

Either way, Ebony Parker becomes a scapegoat for broader leadership failures. She bears responsibility for her decisions on January 6, and the jury’s findings reflect that. But Virginia’s standards make the principal and superintendent jointly responsible for the systems, records, interventions, and climate that prevent tragedies like this.

There is no question that based on the available information, and, as the primary person in charge of this situation that day, Ebony Parker has serious accountability for this horrible event; however,  she was left standing at the crossroads of failure and blame. She worked inside a system so riddled with broken protocols and lax standards that a tragedy like January 6 was not just possible, it was predictable. And when that day came, the same system that helped create the conditions for that disaster turned its back on her, leaving her to carry the weight alone. Others need to be accountable too.